Everyone lately, talks about Social Security and Medicare as the greatest scourge to western civilization, since the time before vaccines.
But nobody has managed to do much about it ... Not yet anyways. Give em time ...
The rhetoric warriors are amassing their ammo.
The War On Entitlements
by Thomas B. Edsall, nytimes.com -- March 6, 2013
[...]
These facts include the following: Two-thirds of Americans who are over the age of 65 depend on an average annual Social Security benefit of $15,168.36 for at least half of their income.
Currently, earned income in excess of $113,700 is entirely exempt from the 6.2 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security benefits (employers pay a matching 6.2 percent). 5.2 percent of working Americans make more than $113,700 a year. Simply by eliminating the payroll tax earnings cap -- and thus ending this regressive exemption for the top 5.2 percent of earners -- would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, solve the financial crisis facing the Social Security system.
So why don’t we talk about raising or eliminating the cap -- a measure that has strong popular, though not elite, support?
[...]
Cutting benefits is frequently discussed in the halls of Congress, in research institutes and by analysts and columnists. The idea of subjecting earned income over $113,000 to the Social Security payroll tax and making the Medicare tax more progressive -- steps that would affect only the relatively affluent -- is largely missing from the policy conversation.
The Washington cognoscenti are more inclined to discuss two main approaches that are far less costly for the affluent: means-testing of benefits and raising the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. (Sidenote: policy makers and national journalists who weigh in on this issue generally earn more than $113,700 a year.)
[...]
That's some "sidenote" -- Let it sink in for a moment.
The most equitable way to "solve" the Great Retirement Scourge (according to the CBO) -- is never even mentioned in "polite company" anymore. It's been dismissed out of hand.
WHY is that?
Well consider the source. And then consider their salaries -- and then you see why they prefer "cuts to benefits" -- rather than "cuts to their own earning potentials."
Fair is fair. Afterall, THEY are the "solution creators."
Well if we really did live in a time "before there were vaccines," I bet someone, somewhere would by telling these Washington Insiders and self-appointed Entitlement Reformers:
"Go Tax Thyself!"
Please read the article -- it is chocked full of facty goodness. Especially for those of us, who are the bargaining chips in someone else's high-stakes, blame-the-rubes game.